Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions

Rob Sayre <> Mon, 16 September 2019 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5671200B7 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yqvunj2k5RRn for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A41791200C5 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k5so1666178iol.5 for <>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X5kQ0sFCpdFano8IAyBQvOuaCkZY0RB9Jjas+AuzRqk=; b=ccB0FJQmBXQMwv8TnZbSGOyr1UZb7WUCdZu99Y5ehXfIUMpgk/VrJLFz+zVU9I+yqQ Tw5+hNxrRny6TnhxbuxJqORCkm3xE0LnN/ZmNqvB6bZm3Tu27jddB7orSvbwlGUAODbu y0MbKex4khSq3OQxfMEP9xFvQsBelGMAeYeAY3HHwg0AI99LFblTvD5Gkl+YseV19bHy gM9ds91JoJQMk6T30DjVwHESasVq2SW1lPodGcFR3kGkB1G0M1TWDHXgMPeOO+417YC3 to2SikbrwgscXfE/0eMK6gxH+xZAXgtCsxbSD3OJnl2MRjbNBLTwfmiSQfCYNGf7yNs3 QrBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X5kQ0sFCpdFano8IAyBQvOuaCkZY0RB9Jjas+AuzRqk=; b=N5s4CH9lUpdgUH9SWaHKvDtv5plgSJe6jl8yNMfxJCoLCYw0bksKD0duH9AWXqTe90 /JcLRmNGLw3YKxgXPsIH7BjPxKxg0GTE1ENwtsNbFb30UZHHBBaPfUJNIJiAzo6zEXJD zkGafIFVJcwi//8+xjb8OpuVIEdr/X8tLSPMylZUlZ4aRio0WfUhsSGtZYssJWw53WmI yXvrwQIHAo9254gCl5v89X6sjl70Cg+bAVdMlHGuwXzTk93rqblBMe+TSVw5q+BjeyWq nogU1VbIqQSbrnGNkvD/BB1F9gYhcqsfoQy9tw0YmeGfUafL+QwKNGQoRvMIYoMbicnC pc+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUery5oRZeRQ0bfFIvQi7/dC92lwqtkpcLTI6BVs66FRvhjP+yA EkOrioMsaYwU9WYAlx1Ls8bxUhv2Lp+178pKw3M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxbD/le/TrAIDViQxFLtrW0Li7hwbMgI0IQB8xI0VJhzfwKcICTn9OrZuQ/hqTT5ZD73NqtU0dSICe+eDjCHYU=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8f43:: with SMTP id x3mr503290iop.257.1568660964810; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F81AE7E530D4651A0806B087@PSB> <> <> <695F3A82D6E185E45D5D1344@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <695F3A82D6E185E45D5D1344@PSB>
From: Rob Sayre <>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:09:13 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Planned experiment: A new mailing list for last-call discussions
To: John C Klensin <>
Cc: Julian Reschke <>, Barry Leiba <>, Bob Hinden <>, IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000094a5f20592b05749"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:09:33 -0000

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:46 AM John C Klensin <> wrote:

> This is a serious question despite the way I'm about to ask it,
> but, if we successfully did a split on that basis, wouldn't that
> leave us an "IEFF Last Call" list and an "IETF Noise and
> Whining" list?   It also suggests something else: would it make
> sense to do a three-way split:

I think this raises a good point, but I would modify the solution based on
the current list description.

1) "It furthers the development and specification of Internet technology
through discussion of technical issues"

>  * IETF Last Calls on technical specifications (including
>         technical A/S documents)

2) "it hosts discussions of IETF direction, policy, and procedures"

>  * IETF Last Calls on procedural specifications (as
>         recent examples, that would include all of the
>         anti-harassment documents, all of the IASA2 work, and
>         any documents that arise out of the recent discussions
>         about recalls and recall eligibility)
>  * Everything else

So, I think there is an argument for keeping procedural RFCs and
"everything else" on I'm not sure how easy it would be to do

I do think email provides a nice escape hatch if there's an edge case where
it's not clear which list is best: CC both lists. Hopefully, that will be